|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gallipoli article.|
|WikiProject Turkey||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
How did this become a 'founding myth'? Gaurav
The Battle of Gallipoli is known simply as Gallipoli in Newfoundland. Newfoundland was the only country in North America to commit troops to the battle as the Royal Newfoundland Regiment fought alongside Australian and New Zealand forces in the Gallipoli Campaign. BmPower, April 27,2005
- Country?--Greasysteve13 09:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Googling on Newfoundland and Gallipoli there are various references. The following link might help: from Newfoundland Regiment: Gallipoli - 1,076 Newfoundlanders landed on the shores of the Dardanelles on September 19, 1915 and left January 1916
- Because the Newfoundlanders arrived in September, I think it would be useful to clarify their presence. I am not attempting to belittle their contribution, but for Australians and New Zealanders the battle is remembered for the dawn landing followed by months of entrenchment close to the shore facing the Turks - only the latter experience applies to the Newfoundlanders (the comment in the article was: "The soldiers arrived expecting action and excitement. They were soon disappointed; they spent the first few months digging trenches and keeping long night watches"). Clarification would help against reversion of the Newfoundland reference. It would also be useful to know how Newfoundlanders commemorate their participation. --AYArktos 21:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- In Newfoundland, the Gallipoli offensive is commemorated each year on April 25 by the Royal Newfoundland Regiment who hold a march from Government House through the streets of St. John's ending at the National War Memorial. Members of both the Australian and New Zealand armed forces are invited each year to participate (and almost always do) in the march and wreath laying ceremonies. People in Newfoundland realise that Gallipoli was mainly an Australian/New Zealand operation, with a smaller contribution from Royal Newfoundland Regiment (hence the April 25 date of recognition). --User:Jcmurphy 05:17, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The Newfoundlanders served in the Suvla sector of Gallipoli, which existed from August until December 1915. The only Australians permanently stationed in that sector were the members of the Royal Australian Naval Bridging Train (RANBT), and there were no New Zealander units permanently stationed there. So in fact the Newfoundlanders served mainly with the English, Welsh, Scots and Irish forces which made up the majority of troops at Suvla. Approximately 45 Newfoundlanders died at Gallipoli. There was a Canadian Hospital situated on the Greek island of Lemnos in support of the Gallipoli campaign. Two of its nurses died on that island during the campaign.
Gallishaw, J. Trenching at Gallipoli. A Personal Narrative of a Newfoundlander with the Illfated Dardanelles Expedition, New York, A.L. Burt Co., 1916.
Mustafa Kemal's speech
He is quoted in the article as saying:
- "I do not commend you to fight, I commend you to die."
But wasn't what he said closer to the following:
- "I do not command you to fight, I command you to die." -- llywrch 01:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
"His famous speech "I do not command you to fight, I command you to die" shows his courageous and determined personality and also shows the main character of a Turkish Warrior. He went on to found the modern Turkish state after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire." Is this part propaganda for Attatürk?
- No, it is the truth: Edward J. Erickson, Ordered to die. A history of the Ottoman Army in the First World War. Westport/London: Greenwood Press, 2001, xx11 +265 p. --220.127.116.11 (talk) 02:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The quote isn't a sign of courage - it doesn't take much courage to command/commend others to die - but it is a sign of a determined military commander. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
'Battle' of Gallipoli
There was no 'Battle' of Gallipoli. The correct term in English is 'Gallipoli Campaign'. A campaign consists of a series of battles. Some of the battles fought at Gallipoli were 'The Landing', 1st Krithia', '2nd Krithia', 'Sari Bair', 'Scimitar Hill' and 'Hill 60'. Hayaman (talk) 03:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Contradiction in article: how many deaths?
Overall, there were around 300,000 Allied casualties including around 100,000 deaths and 150,000 Turkish casualties including around 20,000 deaths. ....
In fact around 21,000 British died, 10,000 French, 8,700 Australians, 2,700 New Zealanders and 1,370 Indians. Nearly twice as many Turks died (85,000) as all the Allies combined. However it must also be noted that, relative to its population, Australia suffered more losses than any other nation in World War I. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 03:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- I've removed the following text:
- Overall, there were around 300,000 Allied casualties including around 100,000 deaths and 150,000 Turkish casualties including around 20,000 deaths.
- I don't know the actual figures, but these seem to be wrong, at least according to Gallipoli campaign. Figure for Australians is here, which is consistent with what anon has written above. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Using the population figures at World War I casualties and the figures currently in the casualty table here, the precentage of population deaths were, in order:
- OTT 0.00407%
- NZ 0.002474%
- AUS 0.001935%
- UK 0.000468%
- FR 0.000252%
- IND 0.000043%.
- Maybe the sources for the casualties here shoud be checked? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
can we have a disambiguation page? gallipoli campaign, place, movie? i'm sure there are more. it'd make life easier. or is that old fashioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Gallipoli (disambiguation) already exists. Perhaps you mean it should be moved here, and this page moved to Gallipoli (Turkey) or to Gallipoli peninsula? If so, I agree. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Any objection if I make the move? Regards, Ben Aveling 12:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that we need to - before you make the move, is there anything in a Style Guide that might give some advice? Given that the disambig page is listed on the first line of the page here PalawanOz (talk) 12:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC) I'd also note the result of the page move proposal above - which was to keep the page as is, rather than renaming to "Gallipoli, Turkey", or similar PalawanOz (talk) 12:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
As Gelibolu and Gallipoli are the same place, it would be best to merge the two, with an appropriate redirect. Although "Gelibolu" is the Turkish usage, "Gallipoli" is the usual English language version and this article is the most developed, so I propose the merge into Gallipoli. Folks at 137 (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Rerated article as "start". No way is it "B", since referencing is incomplete and the subject is confused - is it about the town or the peninsular - it's not indicated by the title which is linked to by articles that assume the town. Some projects have criteria for "B" status; it might be useful to consider them. Folks at 137 (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Constantinople or Istanbul
- I reverted a recent edit which changed (in only one instance) Constantinople to Istanbul. The edit summary given for the change was that the city was known as Istanbul after the Ottoman conquest in 1453. This is not correct. The city was called Istanbul in common Turkish usage, but it was officially Kostantiniyye from the conquest in 1453 up until the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1923 as well as most of the rest of the Islamic world. Outside of the Islamic world, the city was known mostly as Constantinople but also as Tsarigrad (Slavic countries) as well as Stamboul, a variant of Istanbul. Istanbul did not become the official name until 1923, within Turkey, and internationally in 1930 with the Turkish Postal Service Law of that year which began the return of packages and letters not addressed as Istanbul. Since the event in the Gallipoli article take place in 1915, when the city was still predominantly known as Constantinople (and Kostantiniyye in the Islamic world), the correct usage would be Constantinople for that time. Age Happens (talk) 07:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
On the Campaign
I have added in one or two sentences about the landings and the subsequent failure to take advantage of the initial lack of oppossition, allowing the Ottoman Empire to pour in reinforcements. Please feel free to change or delete as you see fit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willski72 (talk • contribs) 10:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
the state that we are in we do not know about the gallipoli isa really boring so we do not know anything about it the end!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 23:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
This is listed in Music on the Dutch page for the battle of Gallipoli. It says The Sweedish heavy/powermetal band Sabaton brought the Album The Art of War out in 2008 with a number over the battle of Gallipoli: Cliffs of Gallipoli.
De Zweedse heavy/powermetal band Sabaton bracht in 2008 zijn album The Art Of War uit met daarop het nummer Cliffs of Gallipoli.
I think this is a nice addition to the article as the song is very good and it teaches history in a way that is easy to remember. Music —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clwijnen (talk • contribs) 13:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
As someone wrote above, this article reads like a school essay. It has way too few sources and makes sweeping statements like Anzac Day is the most important national day of commemoration for Australians. I don't want to go through and put  everywhere, but something needs to be done. Anyone? Rumiton (talk) 12:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)